Have we been so conditioned to believe lies that we cannot see truth?
The previous article in this column discussed “How Can We Know Truth?” It concluded that we should not depend too much on any one method, but rather would have the best chance of being right when our inspired feelings and our detailed mental analysis agreed. But we all know cases where the truth is right in front of people and yet they are blind to it. And someone else might have looked at us and wondered why we could not see the obvious. Let us now consider the question of just why people cannot see plain truth when it should be as unmistakable as the noonday sun.
Reader discretion is advised: this article implies that nearly all of us have believed at least some lies and fallen into traps set by wicked, deceitful men. Hence, to the extent that you too have been deceived, this article might be upsetting to your world view. All of the views expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not represent the official position of this magazine nor of any church.
Rejection of Truth
The Savior shed some light on the question of why people reject truth. He said if people obeyed His word that they would know the truth, and the truth would make them free . His listeners replied that they had never been in bondage. That speaks volumes in itself, because they were then in subjection to Rome. But the Savior let that example of blindness pass and went directly to the root of the problem. He explained, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin” . They didn’t like that answer and sought to slay Him, claiming that it was He who was wicked and was possessed by a devil.
Could Pilate recognize Truth?
This is a great example of blindness to truth. Can you see a problem with people who attempt to prove their own righteousness by executing a man whose only crime was to hint that they might be in bondage to sin? Being slain for revealing wickedness has been the perennial problem of prophets. The Savior’s attackers saw no problem with themselves, and crucified their promised Messiah by claiming blasphemy to prove their righteousness and His wickedness. How could they be so blind? This same problem is rampant today: those who expose sins are squelched. In fact, it is not even politically correct to use the word “sin” because it could offend an atheist. What did the Savior say was the root of this problem? He taught them plainly: “Ye seek to kill me because my word has no place in you” .
The Lord said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man” . We are all born with a conscience which tells us right from wrong, and which can reveal truth to us, as discussed in the last article. When we continually ignore it, that still, small voice gets even softer until finally we cannot hear it at all.
Parable of the Sower
The Lord gave the parable of the sower which summarized three broad categories of why people reject the truth of the word of God . The first group of people mentioned are those who are hard-hearted and reject truth outright. The second group accepts the truth at first, but then persecution convinces them to reject it. The third group also accepts the truth initially, but then they are seduced by the deceit of riches. They love money more than the truth, and cannot serve two masters. These groups are easily identified today. Note the influence of persecution and deceit.
Why is it that knowing the truth can make one free? What is the relationship between truth and freedom? This is a deep subject which could be a book, but there is one scripture which throws much light on the subject:
And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. 
Thus, Satan’s purpose is to deceive and to blind men so that he can lead them captive, and he is successful with those who do not hearken unto the voice of God. This explains why knowing the truth can make one free. The truth is that we have been blinded by Satan, and we cannot see that he is leading us around captive. We are captive without even knowing it, just as were those whom the Savior taught. And once blinded, it is difficult indeed for us again to awaken and open our eyes and see the truth.
Crucified for telling the truth
As a first step toward recovering from our blindness, let us consider systematic methods for conditioning people to ignore the voice of truth. Keep in mind that on own personal Judgment Day, we will not be able to use the defense that we were deceived, because part of the test was to see if we would heed our inner voice.
The Lord has said, “For there are many . . . who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” . What are some subtle methods used by scheming men to purposely blind us to the truth?
There are several methods of mind control which vary both in method and severity. One technique is hypnosis, which has both light and deep varieties. Another technique is conditioning, which can vary in degree from simple training of a dog or child to full blown brainwashing. These methods can be used for good or evil: a dog can be trained to be a seeing eye dog or a killer even as a child can be conditioned to love and become a good citizen or to hate and become a suicide bomber.
Let us consider some degrees of mind conditioning. Brainwashing, the most severe form, is defined as “a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.” The definition for “marketing” is similar but less severe: “the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service.” If what is being sold is “beliefs and attitudes,” then marketing techniques can be similar to brainwashing techniques. Note that neither definition says anything about whether the beliefs being promoted are true or false, the purpose of both is simply to convert to a new belief system. At the least severe end of the scale we might find simple appeals to emotion or reason.
There are many articles on the internet about brainwashing techniques. Many methods have been used, but it is hard to find two authors who agree on exactly what constitutes brainwashing. Often the victim is in a controlled environment that includes abrupt changes, being deprived of sleep and of family and friends or any support system, and is prevented from getting information from any other source. The victim usually doesn’t know what happened, but gradually accepts ideas that he previously might have fought to the death to resist. The brain is “washed” clean of what it used to think, leaving it open to accept a whole new belief system. Afterward, the victim usually will defend his new slave master as having “enlightened” him.
In this article let us focus on a form of mind conditioning which is less severe than brainwashing but more than marketing. Moreover, it is always dedicated to converting to lies and to evil. It may be best to coin a new term to describe it, so let us refer to it as “blindness conditioning.” It is a process used to train someone to become blind to the truth.
I have chosen six methods to define “blindness conditioning.” All of them are found among the many techniques used in both brainwashing and marketing. These seem to be both especially effective and also commonly used by crafty men who are in the business of deception. Once we learn these techniques, we can recognize the pattern and realize when we are purposely being manipulated to accept some belief against our will. Then when we see it in advertising, in politics, in religion, or (perish the thought) even in science, it can be recognized. Once we can “see” again, we can recognize the truth and the truth can make us free.
Desensitize by Inundation
Begin by flooding the victim with constant barrage of the lie, even though it is completely opposite of what the person knows to be right. The goal here is simply to get acceptance of the belief as an acceptable “alternative” rather than something to be shunned or fought against.
The purpose of inundating is to desensitize the person to any existing negative connotations. If the individual is smothered with so much of it that his early warning system to detect falsehood is blaring constantly, then he may choose to ignore the warnings. In other words, he stops listening to his conscience because it becomes annoying. He is conditioned not to follow the light within. He then becomes comfortable with the higher levels of evil. Clothing that was once shockingly immodest no longer offends.
If one floods the market with too much poison too quickly, the intended victims might get sick and vomit it out. So if there is time, the desensitization should be done by gradually turning up the level of inundation so the victim becomes totally accustomed to it. Our desensitization to immodesty was accomplished by modifying necklines and hemlines little by little.
Are we boiled frogs?
Perhaps the best analogy is “frog boiling.” It is said that one can boil a live frog by very slowly turning up the heat, so that it gets used to higher and higher levels of heat. When it finally realizes it is being cooked, it is too late because its muscles no longer have the strength to leap to safety. I personally don’t know anyone patient enough to cook frogs this way, but it makes a great story. A faster way is to simply behead the critters and get on with dinner, but that is the old-style method of brute force, rather than the modern way of using gradual conditioning to convince victims to voluntarily choose to stay in the kettle.
Words with negative connotations are dropped and much more user-friendly words are introduced. Or better, well-known words are hijacked and redefined to support the concept being sold. This is an important support step of inundating with lies. If the lie is too obvious, it will be rejected even with inundation. So words are redefined to sound like concepts that are already accepted, and even espoused by the listener.
The redefining of old words is done blatantly, with no thought of honesty. Consider an example from politics. A political “party” in the United States is supposed to be a group of people sharing similar views of how to govern, but always in the context of swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution. But we see candidates listed on the ballot as representing the “Communist Party.” Communists cannot be a legitimate “party” at all in the U.S. because they are openly working to destroy the constitution and freedom. Simply renaming “treasonous conspirators” to be a “political party” gives acceptance. Did you complain to the proper authorities the last time you saw communists on the ballot? Simply renaming evil has incredibly powerful results.
Another method is to rewrite history so that the lie appears to be a long-established truth. Convince people that Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln were evil. This can be done without a shred of actual evidence by simply using a big-name professor who fabricates outright lies. There is much real evidence that all three of those men were called of God to perform a mission, which they did with honor. Each used to have his own national holiday, but now Columbus Day is a day for hate rallies and the birthdays of our two greatest presidents have been replaced with “Presidents’ Day” as if all presidents (some of whom were scoundrels) were equally honorable.
Stifle All Opposition
Another important step is to squelch or completely silence the opposition, effectively removing any freedom to choose. This can be done by ridicule, by comparing them to hated images such as Hitler, by punishment, or even legally outlawing the opposition and making a public spectacle of offenders to instill fear in others. Perhaps the best way of all is by “science.” People think of scientists as totally objective, who always discover truth with their experimenting. After scientific evidence is entered, then anyone who dares to question is accused of being unscientific and believing in a flat earth. A common technique here is not to let any dissenter be employed. That way, you can claim that there is a consensus of all experts in the field.
False Peer Pressure
One of the final techniques leading to “conversion” or acceptance of the product, is to falsify evidence to show that all of your friends believe it, or are using it. At first this is an outright lie, but in a successful conditioning campaign it can become true. For example, many commercials for beer imply that everyone drinks beer because is “cool” to do.
Now let us consider the examples of socialism, evolution, and the marketing of evil. You can decide for yourself it there is any chance you have been “blindness conditioned” to some degree.
Socialism is a political and economic system designed to enslave society. What? That isn’t what you were taught in school?
Let’s see. My dictionary says that socialism is “a political and economic theory which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production and distribution, and exchange.” We need to decode this definition. What is the “community as a whole” (sounds like the neighbors). It is the government. Who is the government? It is a few people at the top who enforce their laws with armed police and soldiers if necessary. They control and distribute all of the goods in the country. The citizens work for the state. The workers may own nothing at all, or perhaps just what the state feels might be acceptable for them.
Who owns the wheat?
If you cannot own any property, what freedom do you have? What if you had no home, car, clothing, food, or even water? What could you do but work for the state and hope they supply your basic needs? How would that differ from being a prison inmate? Hence, this article refers to socialism as a system of enslavement. Stalin starved to death some 25 million of his own slaves in the Soviet Union, which shows what can happen when the state controls the distribution of food.
Socialism enslaves slowly, like cooking frogs, conditioning the future slaves into accepting their new bondage as being “progressive.” In contrast, the more primitive communism accomplishes the same thing by force and revolution. That seems less desirable for the slave masters because many of the slaves are killed in the takeover and it is too obvious that they have become slaves.
Note that in conditioning people to be slaves, it is extremely important to have all their primary allegiance be to the state. That means that religion, family, and education must all be suppressed because they can lead to people to have loyalty to God, to family members, or to principles. Slaves must be kept in ignorance, with their family members separated, with prayer and any mention of God being strictly forbidden.
Now let us review how the six blindness conditioning techniques are used in spreading socialism in general and also with specific programs.
Is Socialism the Beast?
Accepting Socialism. Inundate with lies about the evils of capitalism and utopian glories of socialism. Redefine enslaved states to be “Republics” (the “R” in U.S.S.R.) and the United States to be a “Democracy” (rather than Republic).Convince Americans they are encroachers on the land and imperialists who are forcing freedom upon cultures around the world. Rewrite every aspect of history and award the authors the Pulitzer prizes, applauding their objectivity. Stifle all opposition by using the A.C.L.U. to give equal rights to communists, threatening to sue anyone who dares to stand up for the rights the Constitution guarantees. And finally, use the peer pressure of having the United Nations decree that the United States is out of line and needs to forfeit its sovereignty and to do as told by the “world community”.
Atheism. The state religion of socialism is atheism. Atheism is nothing more than an apparently rational excuse to ignore one’s conscience, which testifies of God, and to hope to escape responsibility for sin by claiming ignorance. Note that atheism is a relatively recent phenomena, only attracting many followers after the advent of Darwin. Before that, the existence of some kind of Creator was obvious to anyone who examined a flower. They could see the truth right in front of them.
We are now inundated with atheism, which has gradually become accepted to be a rational belief. History was rewritten claiming that the Founding Fathers were deists, meaning that they believed in a God who might as well not exist because all he did was create everything and then leave. That is false; they were mostly Christians. And the A.C.L.U. fights for the rights of atheists above all, forcing their religion to be the state religion contrary to the First Amendment.
Anti-Family Persecution. The family is another source of allegiance which must be destroyed in order to have properly behaving slaves. Did you know that one of the first things Lenin did in the newly created communist Russia was to institute “Postcard Divorce”? If a married couple had a spat, either spouse could be instantly dissolve the family by simply mailing a postcard. The other did not even need to be aware of it. Now we have followed that example with our “no-fault divorce.” So much for marriage being a legal “contract” that needs to be kept.
Lenin also attacked the family by forcing women out of the home into the workforce, promoting infidelity in marriage, and legalizing abortion. Does any of this sound familiar?
Moreover, the government can make a mockery of marriage by defining it to be between any two people, or between people and animals, or between animals. In Germany, children who are obedient to parents are now being diagnosed as having a mental disease because “normal” teenagers rebel against their parents. They are being forcefully removed from their parents and incarcerated in mental institutions.
Dumbing Down Schools. It is also important to keep slaves ignorant of the truths which could make them free. Mandatory free government schools can control indoctrination of youth. Some education benefits the socialist state, namely the production of workers. But all real truth, such as could make them free, must be avoided. Such truths are not only taught in the scriptures, but also in all great literature, true art, true history and even classical music. Hence these must all be corrupted with trash posing as writing, garbage as art, and indoctrination as history. Actually, it is best if the slaves cannot read at all, so teaching to read phonetically was replaced with the mind-confusing “look-see” method. Teaching might best be done in the socialist state with television, graduating students who cannot read, and giving tests which require only the rote memorization of the state’s “correct answers.”
The Spotted Owl
Radical Environmentalism. Another facet of this same socialist movement is to somehow curb the overwhelming economic success of this experiment in freedom called the United States. So it was necessary to declare pollution-free nuclear energy as horrible and stop the creation of all such power plants so that we would be crippled by simply all turning on our air conditioners at the same time. Manufacturing must be curtailed by shutting down factories. Also it is important to keep us dependent on foreign fuel, so development of alternative energy sources such as solar or wind energy is economically discouraged, even though given lip service.
Of course we all want clean air, pristine forests for our children to appreciate, and responsible environmental policies. The radical extreme enters when balance is lost. We are told God did not give man dominion over the earth but rather that all use by man of plants, animals and minerals is wrong. We are told we should stop eating animals because it is wrong to kill. If so, should we also stop eating plants for the same reason? Is it wrong even to build a hut in the jungle? Any good idea when pushed to the extreme becomes evil.
Global Warming. What about global warming? Is the earth heating up? If so, is it carbon dioxide that is causing the heating or is the sun warming the earth?  It is hard to get at the truth of this matter because blindness conditioning techniques are being used in foisting the socialist global warming agenda on the entire world. We are inundated with hearing of climate change daily and the huge threat to our very existence. Anyone who questions it, including President Bush, is declared to be an anti-scientific flat-earther. The state meteorologist in Oregon has his job in jeopardy because he dares to question it. After dissenters are purged, then a consensus of those remaining is declared. Laws now state that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. That means we are polluting when we exhale!
When such manipulation techniques are employed we can be sure that there is more to the agenda than pure science alone would dictate.
In my eight years of writing the Science and Religion column for Meridian Magazine, I have never written an article focused solely on evolution. One reason is that it appears to me that we have been so conditioned to believe in evolution that no objective discussion is possible.
What is evolution? In this article, the word refers to the theory that, given the first cells of life that somehow appeared on earth, spontaneous changes occurred between generations which account for the origin of all the species found on earth, including mankind. One may or may not believe that God was involved.
Let us summarize Darwin’s entire theory of evolution in one paragraph. Given the initial form of life, there is really only one principal difference between Darwin’s theory and the former theory of inheritance. The former theory, based on the results of all breeding experiments ever done, was that there is a limit to the variation possible in each species. Darwin proposed that there is no limit to the variation, and that nature selects the fittest variations to survive. If so, then new species could be formed, and all life, including man, might have descended from a primitive organism. He knew that such a proposal flew in the face of all that had ever been observed, including the fossil record, so all of his books were plausibility arguments to explain how it might have happened. To me, all of the so-called evidence for evolution discovered since Darwin is also nothing more than an extension of those plausibility arguments.
Evolution is a theory that offers a plausible explanation of life for atheists. If you believe in God, then creation is a far simpler explanation, rather than having to believe the absurdity that zapping a single cell with mutation-causing radiation will cause its descendants to develop well-designed eyes, lungs, heart and brain. On the other hand, many devout Christians believe that evolution is the process that God used in the Creation. This belief is based on what they think is evidence supporting the theory, and the seeming compatibility of the theory with their fluid interpretation of the scriptures. An excellent new book promoting this point of view is The Language of God, written by Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project. I recommend reading it, but to me it only shows the depth of the blindness conditioning which has been done.
In 1848, about a decade before Darwin’s first book, Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto had been published. As noted above, socialism works best in an atheist atmosphere. Many of the forces in nature had already been explained without God by using “natural laws” (without asking where those laws came from). The last area where God had been needed in science was in explaining life. So the communists (and socialists) jumped on the Darwin bandwagon and proclaimed that Darwin had removed the last prop for God and had proved that He did not exist. Of course that was nonsense, because Darwin had proved nothing at all. Besides, those first cells came from somewhere. A single cell can grow into a man in only twenty years, but that doesn’t prove there is no God. So Darwin’s theory was extended to say that all life could have originated from some primordial chemical mixture. That was declared to be fact, and then God was commanded to disappear. Darwin’s proposal, originally just a purely scientific hypothesis about the origin of species, was snatched from the realm of science, declared to be already proven, and used as the foundation of many political schemes, including socialism, communism and fascism.
The entire method of marketing evolution is a textbook case of blindness conditioning. Let us consider some examples and then ask ourselves why such manipulation is used.
Two varieties of Peppered Moth
Desensitization. First of all, we were desensitized to the formerly repugnant thought that man is descended from animals, so that it became an acceptable possibility. We are told incessantly that evolution is true, and is a “fact” not a theory. Some of the so-called “evidence” for evolution is known to be blatant fraud by the scholars, but it is often kept in the textbooks anyway. The pictures of the animal embryos that looked like humans were purposely faked, the peppered moths were glued to the trees because they do not rest there in the daytime, and the famed Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax.
Gradualism. Evolution was not forced rapidly down our throats. It gradually became accepted. In science, this step alone is not necessarily a red flag. It nearly always takes time for a new theory to be accepted.
Deceptive Definitions. Many words are redefined to make evolution sound true. For example, when the science of genetics appeared, with its ability to predict results of real scientific experiments, evolutionists realized their speculative theory was in crisis. Genetics showed that the variations in descendants were limited to a fixed set of possible variations, whereas evolutionists proposed that unlimited variation should be possible. So it was decided to rename “genetics” to be “micro-evolution.” Then “macro-evolution” was defined to mean Darwin’s proposed unlimited variation, as if it existed, and were indeed just an extension of the “micro” version. The proof of what was to be shown was accomplished by simply coining a new word. Then, for simplicity, the “micro” and “macro” are often omitted, and the transformation is complete: the science of genetics was transformed into the speculation of evolution.
To show how powerful this one definition is, Collins concluded a chapter that summarized the genetics of DNA with the statement: “Evolution, as a mechanism, can be and must be true.” That unwarranted conclusion came as a complete non sequitur because no evidence of unlimited variation had been presented at all. A better summary would have been, “The science of genetics has clearly shown that DNA contains the code of instructions used to define the precise form of a living being.”
The Code of Life
Here is my proposed method to help have a meaningful conversation with an evolutionist, or to understand something written about evolution. Whenever you see or hear the word “evolution,” simply replace it with either “unlimited variation in descendants” or with “genetics” (whichever fits best). Just dropping the confusing word “evolution” entirely can greatly clarify what is being said. You will find that when something has really been “proved” it nearly always refers to genetics or the DNA code, and when it is about “unlimited variation in descendants” it is usually mere speculation or plausibility arguments.
Stifling. It is the stifling of all opposition to evolution which is most disconcerting. It has been made illegal even to hint in school that there are other options to consider. Moreover, it is only the godless version of evolution which is allowed, usually with the teaching that evolution must be godless and even proves there is no God (which it does not). Teachers cannot point out that there are many reputable scientists who believe the entire theory is unfounded speculation which has been forced upon us so that atheists would not look like idiots. But this charade has gone too far. It is now not only acceptable to teach this speculation as truth, but it is illegal even to suggest that there are alternate scientific views. The study of Intelligent Design is branded as “religion in disguise” even though in its pure form it has no more to do with religion than does a police detective trying to determine whether a fire was an accident or arson. The bottom line is that alternative scientific theories at not allowed to be taught, but speculation masquerading as science is approved. Even if you believe in evolution, doesn’t that bother you just a little bit that it is illegal to teach any other viewpoint? This is stifling at its best.
Were Adam and Eve real?
Rewriting History. What is evolution if not a total rewrite of the history of the earth? The history in the Book of Genesis has been deemed plausible from Abraham onward. That is, he was a real person, who is the father of many modern nations. But any talk of Noah and a worldwide Deluge as described in the Bible is bound to bring riotous laughter from the “educated.” And any thought that the Biblical Adam was a real human being is discounted even by many Christian religions.
False Peer pressure. To go against the crowd on evolution is scientific suicide. In addition to stifling, there is the peer pressure that everyone accepts evolution as true. Anyone not believing in evolution is discounted as just not being educated. Again we have the appeal to scientific consensus. The claim is made that “No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution”. Perhaps a better statement would have been, “No biologist who questions evolution is considered competent to teach at a university or even high school.”
To me it is tragic that science gets so abused. The theory of evolution could have been stated as a testable scientific theory. It might have died a natural death as a false theory, weeded out by falsifying experiments. Instead, what happens is that negative experimental results are ignored and positive indications hailed as victory in the political environment which funds science and determines the “results” in spite of what the evidence might show.
Did God use evolution?
Thus, any scientific value of evolution is totally muddled in this smoke screen of blindness conditioning. Evolution might be partially true, meaning that allowed variation already pre-programmed into the DNA might be much more flexible than had been suspected before Darwin. Perhaps foxes are related to dogs but not to cats. Did God create single cells with an amazing program written in their DNA which could produce all the animals? Did he create a few well-designed kinds of plants and animals which could evolve into thousands of new species? Did he create everything we call a “species” separately? But alas, we are not allowed even to ask such questions in the modern godless “scientific” arena.
In conclusion, we have to ask, why is evolution promoted with deceptive mind conditioning techniques?
Many years ago when I first read Isaiah’s prophecies that in the last days people would call evil good and good evil , I found that difficult to accept. After all, how could people with a conscience ever be so gullible as to be persuaded to reverse such unmistakable concepts? Well, folks, the transformation is now nearly complete. The word “sin” is rapidly disappearing from the language because that means to break the laws of God, and God has been banished legally from all public life.
But not only has formerly banned behavior become acceptable, and even deemed “good,” it also is promoted with mind conditioning techniques. Let us consider three examples.
Enslaving Drugs. Drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legal to use and have been highly promoted by cunning, deceitful, conspiring men . There has been a great push to legalize other drugs such as marijuana. But even so, most people are not totally brainwashed and can recognize that the use of such drugs is wrong, even if legal. That is, most smokers recognize that they have a “bad habit” and are trying to quit.
The more successful blindness conditioning is on the side of legalized medicine where one is forced by law to treat certain “diseases” with certain drugs. Parents who do not comply are said to be abusing their children, unless they are put on the required medical treatment (such as Prozac or chemotherapy). Huge efforts are made by the pharmaceutical industry to get the entire nation using drugs for the rest of their lives. In this case, victims are not “trying to quit” because they think they have no choice. Often the information of alternative natural cures is withheld or such treatments declared illegal.
Sexual Promiscuity and Perversion. There has been a huge blindness conditioning campaign concerning all manner of sexual perversion. False scientific studies were published promoting “free sex” and immorality hailed as a great liberation movement. Homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality were then introduced as the next steps toward so-called freedom from “ancient taboos.”
Notice the steps of blindness conditioning. First, we are inundated with abnormal sexual behavior on every side, especially on television. We are gradually desensitized to immodesty and taught to tolerate totally unnatural, weird sexual behavior. The medical industry aided in 1973 by declaring that sexual deviants no longer have a psychiatric disorder. Instead, they have an “alternate lifestyle.” Deceptive definitions are employed, such as redefining “gay” to mean “homosexual” rather than “joyful.” Then all opposition is stifled, so that if a basketball player gives his opinion (in this land of free speech) that he does not like to associate with homosexuals, then an apology is demanded and appearances are made on talk shows to explain such a politically incorrect “homophobic” position. The sinful practice is then required by law to be taught from kindergarten onward as was done in ancient Rome before it fell. History is rewritten, claiming that many of our national heroes were homosexuals, which claims can be totally fabricated lies. Then we are lied to about how common homosexuality is, claiming to represent some 10% of U.S. males, when 1% was more accurate. Thus, all six of the blindness conditioning techniques listed in this article have been employed.
Hired Killers. What is the greatest sin? Many would say homicide, and indeed murderers are still sometimes sentenced to death. We could perhaps be more precise: “a hired murderer of the innocent, with complete knowledge and denying the light of truth, or in the case of true Christians, denying the Holy Ghost” . And the more that are murdered, the greater the crime. Thus, names like Hitler and Stalin with their murder of millions to get gain puts them at the top of some lists.
Is a baby worth saving?
But there is another group of people who have killed more innocents than Hitler and Stalin combined. Some 47,000,000 unborn children have been killed by doctors in the United States alone, hired by the mothers of those very children. When worldwide numbers are considered, the total death count is closer to a billion. How could mothers cease to love their own offspring, and doctors turn into killers after taking the oath to do no harm?
Again, we can clearly see blindness conditioning techniques. First, we were inundated with abortion as a topic of discussion when it had been unspeakable previously. Then terms were changed, renaming the formerly heinous crime to be the “Right to Choose.” Americans fight for rights and freedom of choice, so what good American could be against the right to choose? Then most opposition is stifled by making it legal. History was rewritten by claiming that over 10,000 women had died annually from illegal abortions when it was really about 250. And finally, we were told that everyone was doing it, until that became much more true. The result is hailed as a great victory for women and crowds cheer as speeches are given celebrating this victory of freedom over the slavery of motherhood.
Not everyone is sinning with knowledge. Many children are taught to have illicit sex before they have any idea how serious a sin it is and that it can destroy their lives. And it is clear that many mothers were deceived by being told that it was not a baby at all, but rather just some tissue that needed to be removed, like a growing cancer. When these women later discovered that it really was their baby they had killed, they became depressed for years. We weep for these deceived children and women.
Is this baby alive?
But what about the doctors and nurses? They crush the babies’ skulls, suck out their brains, and rip off their arms and legs. They use instruments of torture, and place all the dismembered pieces of the body on the table right in front of them to make sure the body is complete. We would be horrified to see on the news that the murder of an adult had been done that way. These doctors are mature and intelligent, and appear to be decent citizens as they chat with us at church. How could someone be staring the truth right in the face (literally) and reject it?
It turns out that blindness conditioning methods have also been used on the doctors themselves. After being inundated with it as a normal practice, opposition is stifled as they are often required to do abortions in their residency or be denied a medical license. So they “practice” until their conscience is silenced, whereupon they can face the world with a smile. And so the peer pressure is felt that all the other doctors are doing it, so it must be okay.
But there is always hope for repentance. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was the most instrumental in starting abortion in the United States one day had an “awakening” that these really were babies he was killing. He has worked tirelessly ever since to fight this great evil. He has helped produce two movies showing that the unborn are alive: The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason.
The Lord has made it clear that He will return to judge the wickedness of the world and cleanse the earth in preparation for His millennial reign. When He destroyed the wicked before in the Great Deluge, only eight souls on earth were preserved. There is a another great tribulation and time of trouble coming “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (meaning worse than the Deluge), and “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” . We might all ask ourselves if there is any chance we might be in the group that will survive and have the great blessing of personally seeing the Savior come to reign over the righteous in the Millennium.
There are many mind control techniques which are being used in marketing, politics, religion and even science to condition us to ignore the voice of truth and reason from within and accept lies as our belief system. Six methods of “blindness conditioning” were discussed and many examples given of slavery and sin being promoted with such manipulation. But when Judgment Day arrives, will we be able to ask for a mistrial on the grounds that we were helpless after having been brainwashed? Probably not, because the root of the problem was that these techniques only worked because we stopped listening to our consciences. And that was the test, to find out which of the Savior’s sheep truly recognize and heed his voice. Hopefully, being aware of these deception techniques can help us awaken to a sense of our awful situation , reject the false teachings, and begin to follow the light of truth in all things. The Lord summarized the entire problem in one simple verse:
- And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. 
- ↑ Pratt, John P., “How Can We Know Truth?“
- ↑ Beginning with this paper, I’m officially repenting of a trap I have fallen into. Formerly one always capitalized any reference to God, including pronouns. Conforming to modern “progressive” standards I had dropped that tradition in all my former articles, but beginning with this article I intend to return to the former standard in order to show more respect for Diety.
- ↑ John 8:32
- ↑ John 8:34
- ↑ John 8:37
- ↑ Gen. 6:3
- ↑ Mat. 13:3-23
- ↑ Moses 4:4
- ↑ D&C 123:12
- ↑ Both definitions ar from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition, (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993).
- ↑ Cashill, Jack, Hoodwinked (Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005), pp. 15, 29-37. This book is an excellent book summarizing a variety of lies of rewriting history that most of us have accepted as truth. Stalin’s Five Year plan began in 1928. He starved millions to death as he forced communism on his subjects. Their wheat was confiscated and sent to the United States as proof that communism was economically successful. We bought both the wheat and the fraud and in 1933 the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union.
- ↑ In a democracy, the people directly elect leaders. The founding fathers knew it to be an unstable form of government which could only last until the people learned that they could vote themselves money from the public treasury. In a republic, citizens elect their best men to be their local leaders and then trust them to elect the higher leaders. The House of Representatives was designed to be elected by the people, but the Senate was supposed to represent the state governments, not the people. Our republic has been weakened as changes have been made toward the direction of a democracy, such as the 17th Amendment, which states that senators would also be elected by the people.
- ↑ For example, the 1932 Pulitzer prize for news correspondence went to the New York Times’ Walter Duranty for his “scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment, and exceptional clarity” in reporting on the Soviet Union’s Five Year Plan. See reference in footnote 4.
- ↑ Kupelian, David, The Marketing of Evil (Nashville, TN: Cumberland House, 2005), p. 119. This is the book that awakened me to the widespread marketing techniques used to promote many of the evils listed in this article. Kupelian sees the problem only as marketing, but when I did research on brainwashing, the pattern became clear that the methods exceed those of mere marketing and instead are classic brainwashing techniques. The quote on postcard divorce is worth seeing in full: “It is significant to note the one of the first things V.I. Lenin did when he came to power in the Soviet Union, after the revolution in 1917, was to have passed what amounts to our no-fault divorce statutes. Lenin, and later Stalin, determined that in order to maintain control of the people it would be necessary to completely destroy the family and restructure it. Thus, on Sept. 16, 1918, a law was passed whereby one could obtain a divorce by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced. This statute, along with the communist encouragement of sexual immorality during marriage, approval of abortion, and forcing women out of the home into the workforce, accomplished its purpose of destroying the Russian family.” (Mikhail Heller, Cogs in the Wheel, New York, Knopf, 1988, pp 168-179, cited by Charles E. Corry, “Evolution of Society” online at www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-2.htm in turn cited by Kupelian on p. 119.
- ↑ This story was recently on the “700 Club” news program on CBN television. A law dating back to Hitler is still on the books and now again being enforced. I highly recommend this Christian news show where one can see news that will never be on the mainstream news stations.
- ↑ This is a theory of mine which I hope to address in an article someday. It is that all evil is merely some good pushed to an extreme. Moreover, for every good, there is an equal and opposite good, such as justice and mercy. This theory may not be true, but I cannot think of a counter-example. Honesty when pushed too far can cut like a sword, as in telling someone they are ugly. What is the opposite good from honesty? It is diplomacy. And diplomacy pushed too far becomes a lie, which is evil.
- ↑ Isa. 30:25–26
- ↑ Recently British television had a documentary entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” exposing some of the false science used to promote global warming. This is a highly controversial topic. Searching on line for the show’s title leads to many articles pro and con about this subject. The show can probably still be seen on line so you can decide for yourself. Currently most of it is at www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php and an eight minute synopsis at www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSupf6rkgE .
- ↑ The “700 Club” on CBN quoted the figure of .07 C in 50 years.
- ↑ Others define evolution to mean only a godless process. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most outspoken spokesman that evolution must be atheistic, but some of his colleagues have reprimanded those who preach that position. Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist explained, “Science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney [Gould’s third-grade teacher] and have knuckles rapped for it.” See “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge” (review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial), Scientific American 267 (1992): 118-21, quoted in the reference given in my footnote 14 (pp 165-166).
- ↑ Pratt, John P. “What is Creation?” Evolution is never mentioned because it is not required for creation.
- ↑ Collins, Francis, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006). We all owe this man a huge debt of gratitude for working tirelessly to deliver the genetic code into the hands of all mankind. Unfortunately, we may not know if he succeeded until we find the entire code given on the internet.
- ↑ Cashill includes a chapter on Darwinism, with good references to the frauds (Chapter 4, pp. 169-214). But Ann Coulter, in Godless: the Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Forum, 2006), devotes her final four chapters to a truly enjoyable summary of problems with Darwinism. The frauds are treated in pp. 233-240. Tom Bethell also devotes his last two chapters to evolution in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005). All of these books are “must reading” to help be deconditioned to what we have been taught, or at least to see an alternate view.
- ↑ There are many examples of such definitions. If “species” is defined both to mean whatever scientists want it to be and also what God had to create separately, then simply showing that a new species has appeared seems to prove evolution and to disprove God. Another is “natural selection,” which is equivalent to the “survival of the fittest.” Some authors imply that natural selection is what provides the variation seen in descendants. Darwin himself explicitly corrected that misunderstanding (Origin of Species, London, 1872, reprinted by Collier, 1962, p. 91): “Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise . . . ” Another example is “fittest.” To propose that the “fittest survive” is a meaningful conjecture if “fittest” means strongest, swiftest, most sexually attractive, most resistant to disease, or the like. But experiments have been done, and some of those traits actually cause a decrease in survival (Colter, p. 213). So evolutionists sometimes define “fittest” to mean “having the knack of surviving.” Now they cannot be disproved, because the whole concept of survival of the fittest becomes a definition (called a tautology) meaning only that “those who survive are those who survive.” Another variation is “those who have the most offspring always have the most offspring.” Note that all four examples here of deceptive definitions are at the heart of evolutionary theory.
- ↑ Collins, p. 107.
- ↑ One school district attempted to put stickers on biology books stating “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Wow, what a wonderful statement! To me, a similar sticker should be placed on every science book. If Einstein had read a sticker saying, “Newton’s law of gravity is a theory, not a fact,” he might have come up with his new law of gravity (general relativity) more quickly. But an Atlanta, Georgia federal judge disallowed those stickers because the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law establishing a religion. But no law had been passed! And even evolutionists agree that evolution is a theory which explains the observed facts. What was the judge thinking? Would he have thought that a similar sticker on Newton’s book would have been like Parliament passing a law forcing the former religious explanation that angels pushed the planets around? What is a student, or any of us, supposed to understand by the ruling? What else but, “Evolution must be fact, so I should not keep an open mind, should not study it carefully, nor be critical at all of it.” The student is in a controlled environment and will be tested on his rote memorization, with his graduation at stake. This case has been quoted in books against evolution, but what astounds me, is that it is quoted in detail, along with a photo of the sticker, in the totally pro-evolution book by Sean Carroll, The Making of the Fittest (New York: Norton, 2006), pp. 239-240. The author himself is so conditioned that he put it in his section on how to answer those who deny evolution, thinking that the reader will agree with the judge! This is a perfect case of the blind leading the blind (Mat. 15:14).
- ↑ Collins, p. 99.
- ↑ Isa. 5:20
- ↑ D&C 89:4
- ↑ A powerful argument for this idea is in Kevin Trudeau’s Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About (Hinsdale, IL: Alliance, 2004). He is furious with the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission and accuses them of conspiracy to enslave the entire nation to disease and to buying symptom-relieving drugs. He claims to have knowledge as a reformed insider himself, including the brainwashing techniques used. He is not a scientist and often gets technical details wrong, but when I have checked on him by going to original sources, his concepts seem to be mostly correct. This is another life-changing book.
- ↑ Kupelian’s entire Chapter 6 summarizes the fraudulent scientific studies supporting sexual sin.
- ↑ Cashill’s last chapter details much of the fraud associated with sexual liberation. The succumbing of psychiatrists to the homosexual activists is discussed on p. 260.
- ↑ Cashill, p. 262.
- ↑ Mat. 12:31
- ↑ Kupelian, p. 191
- ↑ Kupelian, p. 190-194. This chapter contains Nathanson’s confession of the deceitful tactics used in selling the U.S. on abortion.
- ↑ Mat. 24:21-22
- ↑ Ether 8:24
- ↑ Moses 4:4
Latest posts by Joseph Smith Foundation (see all)
- Doctrinal Fortifications against Darwinian Evolution - February 20, 2017
- Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom - December 13, 2016
- Carbon Dating: How old is it really? - August 13, 2016